April 17, 2014, 06:54:33 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 110
Lenses / Re: Just bought a new Canon EF 70-300L IS USM lens.
« on: January 03, 2013, 09:59:58 PM »
I've considered this lens, but I've developed an addiction to f/2.8 or faster. That and I love to shoot in crazy lighting, which means the >= f/4 just doesn't do it for me. Unfortunately, it's got great range, and otherwise would win out for me even that it's not quite up to the 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 for sharpness/IQ I'd still take it if it was wider than f/4.

Reviews / Re: Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures
« on: January 03, 2013, 12:20:02 PM »
Dustin, have you run this through any AF testing?  I just got mine for X-mas and was running foCal on it, getting a -5 at 24mm and +5 at 70mm  -- I've got to re-run when I have time because I stupidly forgot to shut off the VC, but I was sort of surprised that it was off in that manner.

I'm a prime-fiend, but this was supposed to win my heart back to the zoom side of things, so my hopes are high; I have gotten ZERO real world chance to use this as everyone (myself included) is sick.

Do you do MFA on any of your zooms?

I MFA'ed my rental copy with FoCal, although I feel I would have redone it a couple of times with better distances if I had time, I was rushed and it was the night before so I had to do it in my apartment (not that big). The values ended up being +14 wide, -1 tele. When I finally purchase this lens, I'll have to do some extensive tests to try and check that I get a good copy of the lens. Hmm...time to see if Neuro has a guide up somewhere on a good way to self-test in non-lab conditions for sharpness.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rokinon Cine Lenses, any experiences?
« on: December 30, 2012, 12:29:19 PM »
I'm sorry to bring back up this thread, but I was very much wondering how these lenses perform for still photography. Being cine lenses I would expect a particularly high and even quality throughout the frame - and in fact they are slightly more expensive - but is there any specific optimization for videos - besides the T stops - that would make them problematic for stills?

Their cine lenses are simply their still lenses, but with clickless aperture and rated in T-stops. Other than that, I'm pretty sure they are exactly the same. Maybe they cherry pick some of the stills and put on the cine hardware instead of stills, but I dunno if they do that much extra work.

EOS Bodies / Re: Does a 39.3mp Sensor Exist? [CR1]
« on: December 30, 2012, 12:21:18 PM »
As an absolute non-tech person compared to members like neuro and many others: what do these rumored faster digic versions and higher mp mean in relation to a newer and more improved sensor tech, which was discussed quite a few times this past year? Or does the post tsunami effect contribute to the fact, that Canon were not able to improve their sensor tech as much as some folk were hoping for?

Neuro..are you out there somewhere to explain it in a plain and simple way to folk like me?
Thanks and cheers, Pedro

A new DIGIC will almost certainly be faster, probably have more capabilities and designed around capturing higher megapixel sensors, and also probably built on a smaller process node which can helps reduce power requirements and increase processing power. My bet is that they need a chip with more readout lines, and more computing power to handle a really high megapixel sensor, and be more than a few frames per second.

Basically what everyone else has said (older hardware, stills camera that does video, etc), but also the fact that the resolution on the sensor is vastly larger than the sensor on the GoPro, not to mention the physical size of the sensor and associated heat disipation, pixel read-out timing, etc.

Basically, 2 devices that have drastically different purposes, with one of them happening to be able to do _some_ of the stuff the purpose built device can.

If he doesn't have a need at all, you can save money by skipping the kit lens, but if he doesn't have any other lenses I'd recommend he get it with the kit lens, that way he can try out other types of photography.

Maybe look around for a used 60D/7D, but with that budget I wouldn't guess that he'd be able to find something within that budget, especially also getting the telephoto lens.

Oh, and don't forget putting in a decent tripod. Doesn't have to be one of the expensive carbon fiber, but whatever 5 or 6 pound aluminum with a cheapish ballhead would be worthwhile. Don't get one of those $20 cheapo tripod specials, they're complete crap and I'd almost rather shoot hand-held than shoot with those. Alternatively, if he's going to be somewhere with a post, or table or something, he can just get a beanbag and start with that.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang 24mm tilt and shift
« on: December 28, 2012, 11:52:46 AM »
Exciting! Now if it's IQ is close to the Canon and it's priced around $1K or less, and we have a winner on our hands. If it's $600, it'd be really, really hard to resist buying it on the spot.

recent rumor price from russian site implies a price of a bit over $1000 on intro.
if if really performs, I'll be all over it even at intro price.

Around $1K is great if it performs, I'll just have to hold off a bit on buying it. Priorities you know :(   Why can't I just have enough money to buy every darn lens that I want? It's only going to be a few 10's of thousands of dollars. Come on, it isn't that much? Just one good lotto ticket would do.

It's the IS device starting up and adjusting itself. If you listen closely while you have the shutter half-way pressed you'll still hear it. At least I get that on my 24-105 IS.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang 24mm tilt and shift
« on: December 27, 2012, 05:07:42 PM »
Exciting! Now if it's IQ is close to the Canon and it's priced around $1K or less, and we have a winner on our hands. If it's $600, it'd be really, really hard to resist buying it on the spot.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: World's First EOS-1D C Motion Image Shoot
« on: December 27, 2012, 04:16:36 PM »
Okay, I'm going to call BS, for the most part.

First, I think it is legitimate to capture stills from a video stream.  Of course, if you want to do it right, shoot in raw, and that means use a RED camera, not the "c".  They mentioned this in the video and hoped for the next generation, when RED is already doing it.

Second, and they mentioned this as well, stills settings are nearly always very different than video settings for the same scene.  One might want 1/500th for stills (for reducing motion blur in the final frame) and 1/48th for video (for preserving motion blur to make the video look smooth).  This means it's nearly never possible to shoot video and stills at the same time with the intention of using both as final output.  You are going to have to pick one or the other in advance most of the time.  Again, though they mentioned this, they glossed over it.

Third, if you need flash for your images, video mode is not much help.  Flash is often an incredibly valuable tool for controlling scene contrast, and we stills shooters often don't really realize just how powerful our little on-camera flashes are.  If you want to replace a 580, you might need a 20kW video light, which comes on a truck.  So this stuff is really only for conditions where natural light is acceptable without modification.  Of course, there are many times like that, but not all by a long shot.

Fourth, capturing 24 frames per second and then picking your frame often does the exact opposite of what is mentioned in the video - it misses the key moment rather than allowing you to find it in the video stream.  Not always, but sometimes.  In many cases, I can time my shutter release to within about 2ms for doing things like capturing a batter hitting a ball, a pitcher releasing a ball, etc.  For 2ms accuracy, you need 500fps, not 24fps.  Even if I'm only accurate to 5ms (I can nail that most of the time) you'd still need 200fps.  So, in many cases, "spray and pray", even at ordinary video speeds - or even at RED's maximum of 120fps - is not sufficient to capture the moment unless your "spray" is at very, very high frame rates that neither the "c" nor any of the RED cameras can manage.

I want to reiterate that there are times when this approach can be useful, but it's no panacea as they try desperately to imply in the video.

Very well said.

I don't see where in order to "do it right" you must shoot in raw. However you capture a great image, that's how you capture it. Film negatives, slide film, 4x6, 110 film, FF digital RAW, JPG. It doesn't matter. It's the shot you get, not what medium/media you capture it on. Now, would I vastly prefer RAW of some kind to JPG? You betcha! Although for RAW video, the storage requirements balloon a LOT more. One thing to keep in mind.

As has been mentioned, just because you are capturing at 24/25fps, doesn't mean your shutter is at 1/48 or 1/50. For smooth video you generally would want it closer to that, but as is mentioned in the video, 1/100 and 1/200 can still make reasonable video, and still be good for most stills. Not all of course, I fully submit, but many situations will still be able to be captured perfectly well at those shutter speeds.

The bit about lighting is on point, although you aren't always able to use them. But, as per the article/video, the 1DC has good, usable quality even at extremely high ISO levels. Alleviates some of the lighting needs, but certainly not in every case. For a studio, it might just be back to the good old days* of "hot" lights (* I'm not so old that I ever shot with them).

I'll submit that 24/25fps does take some of the control of exactly when the capture starts, but even so for many (not all) needs it should be more than sufficient. The 1DX can only capture at 12 fps, which is fully half of what the 1DC captures in 4K for video. I agree, when you hit "go" it likely takes a bit more of time to actually start recording than the 1DX may take to begin snapping frames, but if you can anticipate the shutter lack of hitting the shutter button, then you can adapt and anticipate the lag between capture starts which will let you get your shutter pretty close to when you need it, and crank the shutter speed up (decreasing video smoothness, but sharpening the image for stills) while still giving you double the available frames to choose from.

Last, I completely agree that as it exists at this moment with the 1DC, it's not useful everywhere, and I don't think the video really tries to imply that. Instead, it shows a different way to start thinking about capturing individual images. But that, in the opinion of those particular photographer/cinematographers, is good enough for many use-cases now, and floors them as to the quality they can get and that they already are working with mixed-media and this will only increase the opportunities that they have.

Lenses / Re: Bokeh confusion.
« on: December 27, 2012, 01:01:54 PM »
Use a tilt shift lens or an easier way would be to use the Brenizer method.  I do this with my 85L.  Google it.


That sounds really interesting. Maybe I should try this out with my 135L, or if I get a full Macro rig with my macro lens. Talk about getting some fine detail!

Lenses / Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« on: December 27, 2012, 11:38:37 AM »
Problem is that you are lumping all Canon L lenses into a certain class.  Like everything, some are better than others.  Some non-L's are better than older L's, etc.  The comparison you showed does not suprise me with the 35L.  The 35L I think is one of Canon's "weaker" L primes, whereas the 24L, 85L, 135L, and 200L are very strong.  (35L and 50L I don't particularly care for).  To answer your question regarding the 85L vs. 85 f/1.8 at let's say, f/2:  Yes, I think the 85L II does look better overall.  With the 50L and 50 f/1.4, I could never tell the difference in anything between these two lenses at f/2.

Thanks, your post really helped solidify what I should be thinking in terms of this order we're going to place.
I think the 85L is a must, the Sigma 35 is a no brainer (at least until reviews of Canon's replacement for the 35L), and the 50mm length can be covered by the 1.4 for awhile.

Would you guys suggest anything else to think about adding to the bill? I know there is an army of people supporting the 70-200 mkII, but I already love the look and personality of primes, and I just don't think I'd get as much enjoyment out of a zoom lens.

I think where you get an army of people supporting one of the 70-200L f/2.8 IS v2 is that it's quite sharp, fast, great IS, and very versatile and covers a fantastic short to mid telephoto for wedding/event type photography. Sure, you can have an 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm prime lenses, but when there is something happening right now, right this second, being able to go from 200mm down to 70mm quickly to get in on the action can literally let you get a shot you wouldn't otherwise.

That said, primes are awesome, and I'm going to (eventually) be getting some more of them. The one I'm lusting over is the 200L f/2, but that'll happen when I win the lotto. But if your style is completely primes, and you have a 2nd body so you can have a wider lens on one, and a longer lens on the other, with today's high megapixel cameras you can generally crop a decent amount and still get a fabulous print if you need to.

My new Benro C-0681 just arrived. Wow it's light! Although it's the magic dreidal for me, a few weeks late. But I still got something!

Lenses / Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« on: December 26, 2012, 11:43:16 AM »
Thanks for all the replies.

I'd explore Zeiss options but AF is a must for me. Children and weddings don't always wait for MF.

I expect people were seeing you were a portrait photographer, and thinking either you were mostly working with posed subjects where you could much more easily use a MF lens. Children (especially running around) and weddings definitely need to have a good AF lens. From what I've heard, the Canon 85L tends to focus slower than many other lenses, although on a 1D body it AF a bit faster.

Really, pros these days will choose L for the build quality, weather sealing and reassurance that they will work and get the job done. Sharp all around and will last a good while

This is my impression as well, and while I'm not a working professional, the weather sealing and build quality are a big factor for me. That said, there are some 3rd party lenses that are seriously challenging Canon's L lenses, such as the Tamron 24-70 I'm considering. Not sure how weather sealed it is, but the build quality certainly seems pretty good, and IQ seems to be better than the Canon 24-70 v1. Sigma, as you've noticed, certainly has a few new lenses which seem to be doing quite well, and something I may consider when I need those focal lengths.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]
« on: December 26, 2012, 11:34:44 AM »
Any estimates of the weight of the 24-70 f2.8 IS ?

No need to wonder, it's 825g, while the Canon 24-70L v1 is 953g(!) and the Canon 24-70L v2 is 803g.

Personally, the Tamron still feels quite heavy, but I'm used to lighter lenses, so I'm going to have to start doing more push-ups now to get ready for when I get it.

Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 110